Friday, June 30, 2006

Hey New York Times!!!

The "Voice of Reason Treason" is slipping...
IVERMORE, Calif. (AP) -- The scientists who crack open the nation's nuclear weapons for a living are never quite sure what they will find inside.

Many of the warheads were designed and built 40 years ago, and their plutonium and other components are slowly breaking down in ways that researchers do not fully understand. With no new bombs in production, the government spends billions of dollars each year tending to its aging stockpile.

The Bush administration wants to revamp the entire arsenal with a weapon now on the drawing board named the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

The redesigned weapon is needed to ensure "a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear deterrent for the indefinite future," said Linton Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The government and the labs refuse to discuss details of the two designs, citing national security. But they describe both proposals as "conservative" blueprints meant to assure reliability without violating a moratorium on full-scale nuclear testing in place since 1992. (emphases added)
C'mon, Howell Raines...get on the ball!

People are counting on you!

(Filed under the fifth column)

And finally...some common sense!

In a hopefully more than fleeting return to sanity, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to lift the ban on offshore drilling yesterday!

The House bill would end an Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of the country's coastal waters _ everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico and some areas off Alaska.

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., a leading proponent for lifting the ban, said he believes a majority of the Senate wants to open the protected waters to energy companies.

Asked about White House opposition to some parts of the bill, especially a provision that would give tens of billions of dollars to states that have drilling rigs off their coasts, Pombo said, "I dare them to veto this bill."

"They don't like us giving money back to the states. I think it's right," Pombo told reporters after the vote. Forty Democrats joined most Republicans in favor of ending the drilling moratorium.

But all is not yet well in Mudville...

In the Senate, the measure is likely to face a filibuster from Florida senators and possibly others from coastal states that fear offshore energy development could threaten multibillion-dollar tourist and recreation businesses if there were a spill.

The Senate is considering a limited measure that would open an area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, known as Lease Area 181, that comes within 100 miles of Florida. It is not under the moratorium. Even that is unlikely to pass unless its sponsors get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster from the Floridians.

The time is nigh when our nation's very economic and physical security depends on access to oil and natural gas. With state of the art, minimally invasive methods and equipment now available, and in light of who currently holds the cards in OPEC, there is NO EXCUSE not to exploit our domestic sources of oil and gas. In the midst of $3.00+ per gallon gas prices, and in an election year, I'd hate to be the senator or congressman who goes home to explain why there hasn't been anything done to lessen the pain that people--and the economy in general--feel at the pumps.

(Filed under energy madness)


This is a field near New Rockford, North Dakota. The fighter jet is an F-16 of the North Dakota Air National Guard.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

See ya at Keegan's tonight...

I'll be there (along with my brother who's visiting from Chicago) to kick some "big fat backside" in trivia.


Man, did I have a good time, well, what I can remember of it, anyway. The usual Fraters were there (who, incidentally, won Trivia--again). I also had the chance to meet David Strom from the MN Taxpayers League who finally made good on his promise to give me a primo cigar--and Primo it was--thanks, Dave! Aside from the embibing and the fellowship with my brother and some of Minnesota's finest bloggers, including Andy from Residual Forces and also Heavy Handed, I got to meet Rob from Infinite Monkeys (a blogger from Arizona), who, despite spirited conversations with Chad the Elder, remains unchanged regarding his less-than-stellar appraisal of the NYT betrayal leak of classified information.

The highlight of my night, however, had to be when Derek Bingham from Freedom Dogs took pity on this poor blogger and offered to let me crash at his pad instead of taking the long trip back to St. Cloud at 11pm.

Folks--and I mean this, you will not find a nicer guy and a nicer family if you were to search the world over! His wife is a gem and his kids are cuter than cute. After arriving at the Bingham household, I was treated to another beer, as well as my introduction to the Trailer Park Boys, which was funnier than all get out. Derek was right, Andy will have to get over the stereotypes inherent in the program and give it a try!~

Thanks to Derek and his gracious wife and family for their hospitality!

(Filed under Fun with da mob)

Treason? You bet!

Warren "Bones" Bonesteel, a Veteran Marine and regular contributor to Murtha Must Go!!, sent me this in an email this morning:

All the Treason that’s Fit to Print
With great power comes great irresponsibilty.

By Deroy Murdock

The most puzzling thing about the New York Times’s exposure of America’s counterterrorism secrets is that this Manhattan-based newspaper has no apparent sense of self-preservation. If the Times were headquartered in, say, Bismarck, North Dakota, its spectacular disregard for human safety might be explained by the low probability that terrorists ever would hit its community directly.

However, the Old Gray Lady occupies the bull’s-eye on Islamofascism’s dartboard. The Times undermines U.S. national security from its base at 229 West 43rd Street, just a half block from Times Square, which bears the paper’s name. If Gotham ever suffered a dirty-bomb attack, densely populated, camera-filled Times Square would be the quintessential venue for a radiological blast. In that event, gamma rays would race through the thyroids of Times staffers within seconds.

Perhaps America’s self-appointed “Paper of Record” is so self-absorbed that its morally vain editors and publishers ignore the fact that the September 11 hijackers attacked Manhattan, killing 2,749 individuals. These likely included Times subscribers and advertisers alike. According to journalist Ron Suskind’s new book, The One Percent Doctrine, al Qaeda came within 45 days of unleashing a 2003 cyanide-gas assault on New York’s subway system, before retreating. That, too, could have killed Times readers and employees.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly on June 12
told New York’s City Council about 17 potential and actual Islamofascist strikes on the Big Apple. These included El-Sayed Nosair’s 1990 assassination of Jewish Defense League chief Meir Kahane, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (six dead; 1,040 injured), and the June 6 London arrest of Syed Hashmi, a Queens resident allegedly in cahoots with al Qaeda. As “The Great Satan”’s principal metropolis, and home to the world’s largest Jewish population outside Israel, New York holds a special place in the icy hearts of the most violent anti-Semites since Nuremberg.

Despite 16 years of thwarted and successful mass murder by Muslim fanatics in and around Manhattan, the Times spurned pleas by the White House, Treasury, and even Democrats Lee Hamilton (September 11 Commission co-chair) and Iraq War critic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania to stay quiet about the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP). The Times’s June 23 story, among other things, identified the Belgian Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, where the CIA selectively scrutinizes international bank transfers of terror suspects and their sponsors. Besides educating terrorists on U.S. surveillance techniques, the Times has painted a giant target on SWIFT’s offices.

The Times’s manifest arrogance (exemplified when an acquaintance of mine recently answered his phone and heard a recording say, “Please hold for a New York Times reporter”) already is insufferable. But as this institution threatens 8.5 million New Yorkers, its potentially suicidal Bush hatred has devolved into reckless endangerment of Americans from coast to coast.

Islamofascism’s targets include Chicago, home of the Sears Tower — whose possible destruction by seven accused, Miami-based, Muslim terrorists made headlines the day the Times outed TFTP. Terrorists lately have populated Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Diego. The Times’s moral exhibitionism jeopardizes American lives in these and other locales.

Conversely, the CIA, FBI, and NSA work tirelessly to connect the dots, which President Bush’s critics (including the Times) slammed Bush for not doing before 9/11. Now that Washington connects the dots, the Times disconnects them.

TFTP helped authorities capture Riduan Islamuddin (alias Hambali), the ringleader of the October 2002 Bali nightclub bombing that killed 202 innocents and injured some 300 others. TFTP also aided the arrest and conviction of Uzair Paracha, a Brooklyn man who laundered $200,000 destined for al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and tried to whisk an al Qaeda agent into America to attack Maryland. TFTP may have enjoyed other successes. If so, they remain secret…at least until the Times’s next shout-out to al Qaeda.

Like its unilateral “declassification” of the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program last December, the Times spilled the beans on TFTP even though this initiative is considered legal, congressional Democrats and Republicans were briefed on it, and no American claims to be its victim.

This is a crucial point. If the administration used the pretext of counterterrorism, say, to glean financial data for IRS audits (which the Times admits was not the case), knowledgeable legislators could denounce TFTP on the House or Senate floor without legal consequences, since such statements cannot be prosecuted.

As Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution says: “for any Speech or Debate in either House [senators and representatives], they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” As U.S. Circuit Court judge James L. Buckley writes in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, the Supreme Court “has held that the clause protects…even the reading of stolen classified materials into a subcommittee’s public records. Doe v. McMillan (1973).” This is an excellent legislative bulwark against Big Brotherism, if it emerged. But this safeguard hardly satisfies the Times’s un-elected jihad journalists.

“The 9/11 Commission recommended that the government be robust in tracing money,” President Bush told reporters Monday. “If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this War on Terror.

The Justice Department should prosecute the officials who leaked the TFTP story and the Times-niks who publicized it. There is nothing funny about making it easier for al Qaeda and its allies to turn Americans into body parts. Handcuffing a few disloyal newsmen and their bureaucratic sources for aiding and comforting our wartime enemies will telegraph this message.

Average Americans should punish the Times’s transgressions. Boycotting this nationally distributed paper is the easiest way to sock this snotty rag right where it smarts: in the wallet. Watching their red ink rise might make Times personnel think twice before publishing more secrets from America’s anti-al Qaeda playbook.

Meanwhile, the New York Times should adopt a new slogan: “All the treason that’s fit to print.”

— Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

Warren "Bones" Bonesteel

On waking up in the Twilight Zone...

In a move that befuddles me more than I thought I could ever have been befuddled:
Minnesota’s top high school graduates would receive two years of free tuition at state colleges and universities under a plan announced Tuesday by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

The Academic Competitiveness Highlighting Individual Excellence and Valuing Education program would reward students who graduate in the top 25 percent of their high school classes or achieve high scores on ACT tests.

Students in families with an annual gross income of $150,000 or less would be eligible for ACHIEVE. Minnesota’s median household income in 2003 was $52,823, according to the Census Bureau.

ACHIEVE also would reward students who pursue math or science degrees with the chance to get an additional two years of free tuition at any public Minnesota post-secondary institution.

“It will provide a powerful incentive for high school students not to slack off,” Pawlenty said.

Pawlenty flew to St. Cloud Regional Airport to deliver the news along with Minnesota Department of Higher Education Director Susan Heegaard, who would administer the program if it passes the Legislature. (emphases added)
Err... I guess the era of big government has made a return to the State of Minnesota. Not that "free" tuition (don't you love it when politicians use the word, "free" to describe additional confiscations from taxpayer wallets?) would be a bad thing if you can get it. But why stop there? Lets just run the table and offer "free" Lamborghinis to every graduate of Pawlenty's plan that graduates college (after "free" tuition, of course) in the top 25 percent? Hell--let's give them "free" mansions on Lake Minnetonka, as long as we're shootin' the moon here.

Hell, we'll even have Robin Leach give a "Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!" type commencement speech, and have Ricardo Montelban and Herve Vallachaise welcome them to Fantasy Island.

Just how does the governor think he's going to pay for "free tuition"?

Pawlenty said the ACHIEVE program can accommodate 15,000-16,000 students, and he plans to include it in his next budget proposal to the Legislature. It is estimated to cost $112 million in the next biennium. Funding would come from the budget surplus, Pawlenty said.
And just why is there a "budget surplus"? Because we, the taxpayers, are paying more in taxes than the government is using! So what is the answer to fix this problem? Do we give that extra money back to those who worked to put it in there in the first place? Hell NO! We just grow the government til there's no more surplus! That's the Republican way of doing things, isn't it?

I guess it is, after you wake up--in the Twilight Zone.

Okay, "Mr. Governor"--just who the hell are you and what have you done with Tim Pawlenty?

Pawlenty came into office as a small government absolutist, but he's since wavered. While remaining steadfast to his no-new-taxes pledge, which probably won him the election, Pawlenty has been shifting course to favor financing a wide array of middle-class-friendly public amenities, such as stadiums and a pricey commuter rail system.
Something tells me that this latest pork offering will not necessarily seal his credentials as a small government conservative, either.

Definitely not a "Let's energize the base!" move.


Economist King Banaian has more regarding the economic aspects of this boondoggle waiting to happen.

(Filed under overtaxed, pass the pork, RINOs, Pawlenty)

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The New York Times and John Murtha--Bed buddies?

Virginia Buckingham writes in the Boston Herald:
Prosecute The New York Times and censure Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)? I have a better idea: Sit back and watch them self-destruct.
Murtha and The New York Times have done more to aid the fight for Republicans to retain their House and Senate majorities in the last couple of days than Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman could possibly do all year.
But no one, not even the guys who are so devoted to the GOP that they wear elephants on their ties, should be cheering.

What has been lost by Murtha’s rantings and the Times’ irresponsibility can never be regained by electoral victory in the fall. But nor will they regain what they have lost by their own words and actions - the moral high ground.
Let’s start with the Times.
We are less safe today from terrorist attack than we were before the Times disclosed the existence of the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program.
We are more in danger today because The New York Times and other outlets disclosed that American intelligence has access to foreign banking transactions.
Combined, these two programs gave American officials tools they did not have before Sept. 11 to track and disrupt terrorist plots before thousands die.
By the Times’ own admission, the “penetration” into international banking networks helped track down the Bali bombers.
How many more innocent young lives were saved, as a result, from a similar fate in other discos in other terrorist strongholds or, as possible, in a nightclub in New York?
Before the Times revealed the two security programs, literally in black and white, al-Qaeda and its allies did not know, could no know for sure, how best to avoid detection.
They know now.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), no Bush administration-toadie he, said it best: “Nobody elected The New York Times to do anything. The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people. The time has come for the American people to realize and The New York Times to realize we’re at war and they can’t be just on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release.”
And now, the Murtha factor:
And Murtha?
The damage done by this self-proclaimed and much acclaimed moral authority on the Iraq war is far less quantifiable.
Did Murtha bring a smile to al-Qaeda leaders’ faces when they read his remarks over the weekend that America has “become the enemy” in Iraq?
What must Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think of America’s seriousness when a Democratic leader says with a straight face that our nation “is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran?”

I’ve no doubt most Americans respect Murtha’s valor in Vietnam.
Surely many respect yet disagree with his position on immediate troop withdrawal.
But Americans are united on this: We’re not infallible, but we are not part of the axis of evil. America is the greatest country on Earth.
A political party and its advocates in the media who forget that will be reminded this November. (Read the entire article here)
Not to mention this little gem:
Speaking in Florida recently, the anti-war Democrat from western Pennsylvania announced at a political gathering that the "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran."

Furthermore, he told the crowd of about 200, "We want as many Americans out of (Iraq) as possible" because "we have become the enemy."
Murtha and the New York Times are indeed in bed together. While they may sport different linens and bedclothes; both are blinded by an agenda that puts American security and war efforts at a distant third behind sheer avarice and attainment of self-serving political objectives.

(Cross-posted at Murtha Must Go!!)

(Filed under MurthaMust Go!, the fifth column)

The first step in overturning McCain-Feingold?

From Fox News:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont's limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too low and improperly hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters.

In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont's law — the strictest in the nation — sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.

The majority took issue with Vermont legislators for "constraining speech" by telling candidates and voters how much campaigning was enough.

President Bush's two appointees to the court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — sided with the majority in overturning Vermont's law.

In one of six separate opinions, Justice Stephen Breyer said a majority of justices found Vermont's law was unconstitutional.

"That is to say, they impose burdens upon First Amendment interests that (when viewed in light of the statute's legitimate objectives) are disproportionately severe," Breyer wrote.

Although this is a step in the right direction in restoring the right to free and unfettered political speech inherent in the First Amendment, there is much work to be done. We are endowed by our Creator, not by the Supreme Court or by Congress, with certain unalienable rights. Our Founding Fathers even argued amongst themselves regarding the need for the Bill of Rights, since many thought that it would go without saying that the rights outlined in the first 10 amendments in the Constitution were of God, and therefore self-evident. But so as not to leave room for confusion, the Founding Fathers went out of their way to enumerate those rights; so that they would be forever inviolate, and so that citizens would be protected from government encroachment.

Or so they thought.

McCain Feingold, more than any other law previous or since, trounced on our right to free political speech, by setting an arbitrary limit on same, in direct violation to the First Amendment, both in content and in intent.

The First Amendment scored a victory in Vermont, but there is still a battle to be waged. The real travesty of this issue is that there is need for the battle in the first place.

(Filed under Elections, First Amendment Assaults, RINOs)

On riling the RINOs--give 'em hell, George!

From here:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John McCain thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees. Not quite. While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is opening hearings this week into what has become the White House's favorite tool for overriding Congress in the name of wartime national security.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," the committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

Apparently, enough to challenge more than 750 statutes passed by Congress, far more than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that number, but points out that Bush is far from the nation's first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's first hearing Tuesday is about more than the statements. He's been keeping a laundry list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuses of executive power - from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending up officials who refuse on national security grounds to answer questions at hearings.

But the hearing also is about countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush, in practical terms, is doing an end-run around the veto process in the name of national security. In the sixth year of his presidency, Bush has yet to issue a single veto.

Rather than give Congress the opportunity to override a veto with a two-thirds majority in each house, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret the law on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the USA Patriot Act.

This aspect that protects the President's right to act in matters of national security seems to have a particularly nasty effect on the RINOs in the Senate, who would prefer to have a Geneva Convention-styled "terrorist bill of rights" to those who wear no uniform and who hide amongst women and children while conducting warfare:

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act particularly riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration gave in on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

As well as it should be. As being ultimately responsible in matters of national security, the Executive branch has the sole purview of how it prosecutes war in a manner that is consistent with maintaining national security. Congress signs the checks, but it is the President who determines how to handle our enemies. Much to the chagrin, of course, of our sad cadre of RINOs.

(Filed under RINOs, the fifth column, war on terror)

Monday, June 26, 2006

Via Chickenhawk Express...

More at Michelle Malkin...

(Filed under the fifth column)

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Take me out to the ballgame!

I'll be attending the Cubs v. Twins game today (1:00p CDT), where I'll be singing the National Anthem (along with 150 or so other barbershop singers).

This'll be a tough one... my brother will be there from Chicago, and I grew up being a Cub's fan.

But in light of the Twins being on a roll now, I think I'll root for them.

Have a wonderful Sunday!


I had a great time and posted a few pics--I'll post them later...

***UPDATE*** here they are...forgive the quality--they were taken with my phone...

Around 250 barbershoppers lining up to enther the Met

Just about to sing:

During the game...

My brother, Tony, who came from Chicago..

All in all a great experience. To tell you the truth, growing up in Chicago and being a Cubs fan as a kid, and having my brother sitting next to me, it was a bit difficult at first to discern which team to root for. But with each progressively more horrible play by the Cubs, the choice became easier.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Regarding our Guardsmen....

The AP has a pretty decent story (never thought I'd be typing that) about some Pennsylvania guardsmen and their tour of duty in Iraq..

HATTIESBURG, Miss. (AP) -- They are returning home with a sense of accomplishment, but also with feelings of anger and frustration, even despair.

They speak proudly about building up the Iraqi security force, restoring electricity and watching Iraqis walk miles to vote.

But they wonder whether it will be enough to secure Iraq's future, and at times, express bitterness toward the people they wanted to help.

"They're using our good will, our good-nature policy against us," says Sgt. Bobby Walls, a 38-year-old Pennsylvania National Guard member. "The fact that we fight as the good guys sometimes turns around and kicks us in the can, you know?"

Such are the swirling emotions for troops returning home from Iraq. Among the most recent of those returnees are members of the largest contingent of Pennsylvania National Guard troops deployed to a combat zone since World War II.

Fifteen from their ranks of about 2,000 were killed during the nearly yearlong deployment in Iraq's Anbar province, a huge swath of land that's a stronghold of insurgency. Two others are being investigated in connection with the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian earlier this year.

For the rest of these part-time soldiers, it can be a struggle as they return home this summer to regain the sort of normalcy they knew before spending a year with their lives in danger wherever they went. During stopovers at Camp Shelby in Mississippi on their way home, some talked about their experiences.

Walls felt helpless and furious as he stood at ground zero on Sept. 11, 2001, one of several Philadelphia police officers who on their own drove New York City to help. He vowed to become an infantryman and get even, so the father of three went off inactive status in the Navy Reserves and joined the Army National Guard.

At boot camp, the other recruits - many just 18 - called him grandpa. He lost 45 pounds in basic training and scout school that followed. Then his unit was sent to Ramadi, which he nicknamed the "meat grinder." He worked as a sniper, usually with just one partner.

At night, they'd sneak into rural villages and urban areas, tracking suspected terrorists for hours at a time. Sometimes, they'd kill them.

Back at the base camp, Walls became hyper-vigilant. He'd fear if he went to sleep, he would die.

"You start realizing how vulnerable you really are all the time," Walls says. "You're not safe anywhere in that damn place, and that's a bad feeling. Too many guys got hurt or killed just walking to chow ... or running to the bathroom, and they don't come back."

Walls is proud of the work he did as a sniper. He said he killed "upper-tier insurgents" who would have likely killed or injured other American soldiers if they had tried to capture them.

He wonders, though, about the future of the Anbar region. The people "will not be pacified, they will not work with us. I don't ever see it happening," he says.

Walls says insurgents wear civilian clothes and use women and children as shields.

"If you're going to fight the enemy, there are two ways to look at it. You either become just like them, fight them on their own terms or you take the heavy burden like we're doing it right now and it's going to cost American lives. It's a hell of a price to pay but if you fight them on their terms, you're no better than them.

"That's the true dilemma of the soldier right now, to get his sanity and keep his morals, keep his integrity. And it's hard. It's a ... minute-by-minute struggle ... over in Iraq."

From the sounds of this article, it looks like these soldiers were stationed at or very near to where my son, Doug is stationed. This next part really hits home for me, because it sounds a lot like what my son Doug likes to do (I mean play with the children and give them treats):

Children looking for handouts of candy would often approach 1st Lt. Anselm T.W. Richards and the men in his platoon. The soldiers would oblige them, then ask for information.

Sometimes, the children would tell them who made bombs and dealt in weapons. Everybody in town seemed to know the answer.

One day, Richards says, the parents of a 12-year-old boy told him their son had been beheaded by insurgents because he accepted a soccer ball as a gift from soldiers.

"We said to the parents, 'You tell us who did it and we will get them.' They said if we talk to you, they'll kill us as well,'" says Richards, a hedge fund broker from Philadelphia.

"That's the fear in which these people live. That's probably the biggest hindrance to them moving forward."

What is really different about this AP story that is far too-absent in the MSM reporting of Iraq is that they include information like this:

Like Walls, Richards believes no one should be too quick to judge the small group of Marines being investigated in the Nov. 19 deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians, including unarmed women and children, following a roadside bomb that killed a fellow Marine.

"My question is why are people so curious and so eager to find fault with the Marines or soldiers whose lives are on the line," he says. "Why is it their behavior that's being questioned, not the behavior of the guy placing the IED, or the bomb."

He adds: "If it's because children were killed or women, it's understandable, but you know what, those Marines who are killed are children of someone as well."

Among the difficulties: Richards says Iraqi insurgents know the U.S. troops wouldn't fire at a school - "so they will set up on a school or put a sniper on the roof of a school."

Richards says the region is safer than it was a year ago, though five of his men were injured by a roadside bomb just a few weeks before the end of their deployment. Among other accomplishments, he says his brigade helped expand the hours of available electricity each day and trained Iraqi police and security officers.

And these soldiers are human:

As much as he hates to admit it, 1st Lt. Michael Green, a Pennsylvania state employee from Hershey, says he found it hard at times to like the Iraqis.

He was furious to learn some Iraqis blamed the Americans for a suicide bomb attack that claimed the life of Lt. Col. Michael McLaughlin, the first Pennsylvania Army National Guard officer to die in combat since World War II.

After a year in Iraq, "It's not that I feel so different about the war," he says. "I feel different about the Iraqi people because I saw the bad sides along with the good sides, and before all I saw was potential."

He was so angry that he wanted to shoot some construction workers who had pretended, he says, not to have seen a vehicle driven by the kidnappers of a small boy.

He says he wanted to help catch people responsible for bombings and other violence but that townspeople often didn't want to get involved.

To be successful in Iraq, he says, Americans "need to learn the culture well enough to get inside it" and convince the people that terrorism is dishonorable and brings shame on their family.

"They have all the materials they need to be a strong country. What they probably lack the most is the democratized individuals making decisions collectively ... It's more of a 'Why should I get involved?'"(Read the rest)

This story gives me some pretty good insight as to what life must be like for my kid. He tells me in his emails and on the phone that he is doing well, although he relates that the situation around him is "getting hotter."

It'll be a great day next March when he finally comes home. If you can spare a prayer on his behalf (and on behalf of his comrades) when you think of it, it would be greatly appreciated.



(Filed under Iraq, Heroes)

The Secular Taliban continues its relentless attack..

From here:

SAN DIEGO — The city plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to keep a giant cross standing on municipal property, the city attorney said Thursday.

The city wants the high court to review a federal appeals court decision that affirmed a May ruling that ordered the city to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day.

The May ruling found that the city was demonstrating an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over another by maintaining the 29-foot hilltop cross in a municipal park.

The cross was dedicated in 1954 as a memorial to Korean War veterans, and a private association maintains a veterans memorial on the land surrounding it. It sits atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has argued that the cross is an integral part of the memorial and deserves the same exemptions to government-maintained religious symbols as those granted to other war monuments.

Tearing down of religious symbols by intolerant bigots.. Hmmm... remind you of anyone?

Afghanistan before Taliban:

Afghanistan after Taliban:

United States before secular Taliban:

United States after secular Taliban:

San Diego before secular Taliban:

San Diego after secular Taliban:

Any questions???

Stop the ACLU Has a link to sign a petition to save the San Diego Cross from the bigots that comprise the Secular Taliban. Please sign it if you are so inclined.


(Filed under secular taliban)

Helen Harriet the Tortoise...

Has passed away.... below is the last known photograph taken when she was still alive..

(Filed under fun stuff)

Friday, June 23, 2006

What Murtha and others are missing...

Inside the minds of terrorists.. from former terrorists...

An absolutely fascinating interview with three former terrorists, who, among other things, explain why "cut and run" won't work.

This is a 16 minute clip, and is worth every second of viewing.

(h/t to Western Defence)

(Filed under religion of peace?, war on terror)

Why Iraqi WMD finds were kept secret...

There has been much ballyhoo by the "Defeat at any cost" leftists of the time span between WMD finds in Iraq and disclosure of same... Harold Hutchinson tells why this was so:

Why Iraq WMD Finds Were Kept Secret

June 23, 2006: The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, leads to the question as to why the U.S. waited so long to reveal this. The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants – because they want to keep on living. A lack of informants leads to a lack of human intelligence, and the troops don't like being sent out on missions while short on intelligence – it's easy to get killed. This has led to media coverage (particularly around "milestone" deaths) and

The biggest danger with intelligence is in its over-use. This might sound odd, but it is the biggest concern many decision-makers in wartime have to make. Protection of an intelligence advantage can be so important that it might require allowing an enemy action to go forward (like the 1940 bombing of Coventry – Churchill allowed that to occur rather than risk exposing the British ability to read German codes), or it might require high-level approval of a mission (like the 1943 operation in which Thomas G. Lanphier shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the decision to attempt the mission was made by the Secretary of the Navy). In the world of intelligence, decisions are rarely simple, and easily answered. A great deal of consideration goes into the decisions based on the intelligence provided, and when to release the information to the public. – Harold C. Hutchison ( Read the entire article here..


So say the democrats, though not in as many words...

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary John Snow on Friday said a program tracking millions of financial transactions was not invasion of privacy of Americans but "government at its best" and vital to the war on terrorism.

Snow told a news conference the program, run by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, was "responsible government, it's effective government, it's government that works."

"It's entirely consistent with democratic values, with our best legal traditions," Snow said.

The once-secret program, which has been going on since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, has drawn protests from Democrats in Congress, who said it raises concerns about intrusions on privacy and who saw it as the latest step in an aggressive Bush administration expansion of executive-branch powers. Republicans defended the effort as vital to waging a global war against terrorism.


You know, it's just one of those fucking days....


Michelle Malkin, as well as a cadre of very talented letter writers, voices my frustrations much better than I can right now...

(Filed under the fifth column, moonbat adventures)

In a rush to political correctness...

GOP Candidate's Call for Labor Camp Rebuked


WASHINGTON Jun 23, 2006 (AP)— A Republican gubernatorial candidate's call for creation of a forced labor camp for illegal immigrants drew rebukes Friday from two GOP lawmakers, who labeled it a low point in the immigration debate.

Don Goldwater, nephew of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, caused an international stir this week when EFE, a Mexican news service, quoted him as saying he wanted to hold undocumented immigrants in camps to use them "as labor in the construction of a wall and to clean the areas of the Arizona desert that they're polluting."

The article described Goldwater's plan as a "concentration camp" for migrants.

But Goldwater defended his words:
Goldwater, a candidate for governor in Arizona, said in a statement Friday that his comments were taken out of context. He said he was calling for a work program for convicted nonviolent felons, similar to "tried and tested, effective and accepted practices" used by state and local jails.

But two Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain and Rep. Jim Kolbe, called Goldwater's comments "deeply offensive" and asked state Republicans to reject his candidacy in the Sept. 12 primary. (emphases added)

So, in essence, McCain is chastising Goldwater for a plan that includes currently used and accepted practices; because a newspaper editor chose to characterize it as a plan for a "forced labor camp."

But let's take a closer look at it, shall we?
He said he was calling for a work program for convicted nonviolent felons (which many convicted illegal immigrants are), similar to "tried and tested, effective and accepted practices" used by state and local jails. (which is TRUE).
So if what Goldwater is saying is indeed the truth, then why does McCain have his panties in a bundle?
McCain and Kolbe favor a guest-worker program for illegal immigrants.
...Nobody--I mean NOBODY goes against the McCain agenda... especially in McCain's own home state.

But if you ask me, the only difference between McCain's "guest worker" program and Goldwater's "guest worker program" is that the former will encourage illegal immigration.

(Filed under reconquista, RINOs)

Hail to the Chief!

President Bush has used his executive authority to put a check on governmental abuses of eminent domain!~ From here:

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



June 23, 2006.

We'll have to see how this plays out in cases like this.

Chaffee must go!!

Dan Stover hits it spot on:
A follow-up on the Senate votes yesterday:

On the second vote, the Levin-Reed amendment (i. e., "cut-and-run light"), there was one Republican who voted for the pullout!

That was Lincoln Chafee.

For cryin' out loud, even Brave Sir Dayton got this one right!

As those of you who listen to Hugh Hewitt (most of you, I imagine) know, he's about as much of a "big tent" guy as anyone.

Even he wants Chafee gone, though.

Rationale being, occasional strays from the reservation can be forgiven, provided you get the big stuff right, and it doesn't get any bigger than the GWOT.

Finally Dan directs us to:

Steve Laffey for Senate


(Filed under RINOs, great blogs)

New test item on the driving exam...

You are driving in a car at a constant speed. On your right side is a valley and on your left side is a fire engine travelling at the same speed as you.

In front of you is a galloping pig which is the same size as your car and you cannot pass it.
Behind you is a helicopter flying at ground level.

Both the giant pig and the helicopter are also travelling at the same speed as you.

What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?


Get off the children's carousel and, next time, don't drink so damned much!

(Filed under fun stuff)

Pretty sorry when we get more support in the WOT from foreigners than we do from congressmen...

"A Free Man " over at Western Defence is a daily read for me. Not only does he get what the WOT is all about, he is a stalwart defender and supporter of the United States. In a day when Murtha and his willing MSM shills browbeat Americans by saying how horribly we are looked upon in the world, "A Free Man" shows us that we still have allies.

We need to support these and other U.S. friendly foreign bloggers, and let them know that their support is appreciated!

God knows we won't receive such support from some of our own congressmen.

(Filed under great blogs, war on terror)

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Something tells me these weren't Lutheran church ladies...

From here:
MIAMI (AP) -- Seven people were arrested Thursday in connection with the early stages of a plot to attack Chicago's Sears Tower and other buildings in the U.S., including the FBI office here, a federal law enforcement official said.

As part of the raids tied to the arrests, FBI agents swarmed a warehouse in Miami's Liberty City area, using a blowtorch to take off a metal door. One neighbor said the suspects had been sleeping in the warehouse while running what seemed to be a "military boot camp."

The official told The Associated Press the alleged plotters were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt news conferences planned for Friday in Washington and Miami
Residents living near the warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their apparently militaristic group.

The residents said FBI agents spent several hours in the neighborhood showing photos of the suspects and seeking information. They said the men, who appeared to be in their teens or 20s, had lived in the area about a year.

The men slept in the warehouse, said Tashawn Rose, 29. "They would come out late at night and exercise. It seemed like a military boot camp that they were working on there. They would come out and stand guard."

She talked to one of the men about a month ago: "They seemed brainwashed. They said they had given their lives to Allah."

Rose said the men tried to recruit her younger brother and nephew for a karate class. "It was weird," she said.

Benjamin Williams, 17, said the group had young children with them sometimes. Sometimes, he added, the men "would cover their faces. Sometimes they would wear things on their heads, like turbans."
Religion of peace? My ass.

The Tucker family honors their son...

There is a video interview of the family of Pfc. Thomas Tucker here which seems to have been made by their local cable affiliate..

Even as the parent of a deployed soldier, I couldn't begin to understand the level of grief that they're feeling...

The video is poorly made, and it's difficult to understand the reporters' questions...but there is no mistaking the family's grief nor their pride for their son and his sacrifice.

The family goes on to to describe Tucker as a typical, spirited young man, not without his routine teenage rebellious difficulties; but also a young man that began to appreciate the importance of family, and who asked for a "purpose in life".

Below are transcripts of some of the interview:

Mother: "I said, "But Tom, this is the Army, during wartime!" "He wanted to go. There was no talking him out of it. He went in the end of June for his testing and like 14 days later he was gone."

"He said, "I want to feel respected, and I want to feel like I'm doing something for myself and my country; and I want my life to have meant something."

"As a mom, I of course tried to talk him out of it...but when we went to graduation at his boot camp, they gave him a pin for signing up during war time, and he was so proud of that, and he said, "Mom, not everybody's gonna get a pin like that!"

Dad: "Our main thing is that we wanted to thank the community. "Our son's gone, and we're very very proud of him; at the same time we're almost as proud of this community--for the outpouring of the gifts, the food, the money, the show of appreciation."

Reporter: "You seem to be really proud Americans...if that makes any sense, and you--you're proud of everything that Tom's done...and... uh.. and what this country means to you guys.." and... you know... I mean... "Do you feel that way?"

Dad: (pointing to American Flag) "Yes we feel that way!"

Mom: "Yes--when I see the flag--and I"

Dad: "Take a look at the flags around us--when you walk down the street you'd break down crying--even before we knew about Tom--Because of the people that have died; that's our country--because of the lives that were lost--to keep that flag up there--uhh--believe it or not I'm getting too old, I can't go--but there's young men out there dying to keep that flag flying..It doesn't mean that we always agree with all the political nonsense that goes on. Uhh the people that are fighting for us--they're not politicians. They are pawns of the politicians--and they are fighting and dying to keep that flag flying. And before Tom was killed, it started sinking home--and yes we're proud to be Americans."

Sister: "I am very proud of him.. I have a few friends that are down there...and I've been proud and I'll stay proud--they fought along with my brother, and like my dad said I may not particularly agree with or understand the political...where--why the war got started or--but they're down there. And I'm going to continue supporting them."

Mother: "I was so amazed when they told us that basically the war was "held up" because 8,000 soldiers were out looking for my son...and they said they weren't gonna-- (weren't gonna stop) weren't gonna stop until they found him...(sister--no matter how many of them were injured)--"and there were some injured, some killed. And my heart goes out to those mothers--whose families-- they're--they're there for a reason. And, being a mother, it's hard to agree..But I would stand up for that-what he believed in--what we taught him to believe in-- You know, we told everyone that I said if they called me--tomorrow--to go to Iraq--I would go! I know I wanted to go when Tom went but they told me I was too old (laughs).. but-- I would go tomorrow--I would still go tomorrow--even though he's not there."

Reporter: Are you angry?

Mom: "Yes---I'm angry--I'm angry because he was only 25. I'm definitely angry and I know it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. But I just don't know who to be-- I mean I'm angry at the people who did this to him--but I can't--I can't-- there's nobody here I can take my anger out on--that's frustrating-- so yeah--I'm darn angry!"

A sincere thank you to the Tucker family, who have made the supreme sacrifice in the cause of freedom.

Blackfive has an address where you can send condolence cards via Soldier's Angels.

(Filed under heroes)

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Errr...surrender monkeys... you were saying?

One of the big mantras from the surrender monkey crowd has been that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Well, the London Telegraph reports that there have been over 500 chemical munitions found In Iraq since 2003!
US-LED coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, Republican politicians said overnight, citing an intelligence report.

"Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.

"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," the report read.

The politicians cited the report as validation of the US rationale for the war, and stressed the ongoing danger they pose.

"This is an incredibly, in my mind, significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," Senator Santorum said.

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155 mm artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency.

"We're destroying them where we find them in the normal manner," the official said.

In 2004, the US army said it had found a shell containing sarin gas and another shell containing mustard gas, and a Pentagon official said at the time the discovery showed there were likely more.

"Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out," it said.

Santorum said the two-month-old report was prepared by the National Ground Intelligence Centre, a military intelligence agency that started looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the Iraq Survey Group stopped doing so in late 2004.

Last year the head of Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, said that insurgents in Iraq had already used old chemical weapons in their attacks.

Nevertheless, "the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything," Mr Hoekstra said.

"But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said.

Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Mr Hoekstra said: "One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly."

Save the Soldiers is all over this story, including having copies posted of the pertinent unclassified documents!

It's going to be something watching Murtha and the rest of the surrender monkey crowd spin this one.

(Filed under Iraq, the fifth column, heroes, war on terror)

Putting our priorities straight...

California Conservative reports commentary made by Minnesota's own Congressman Mark Kennedy on the House floor:

“Mr. Speaker, where is the outrage? We hear stories today of two of our soldiers having suffered unspeakable torture, and left in a nearly-unrecognizable condition. Yet where are the cries of outrage against this brutality?

“Instead, we hear today of the EU leadership focused on closing Gitmo, and members of this body rushing to judgment on national TV before the facts are known about what our troops in the field have done.

“Yes, we should hold our troops to the highest ethical standards, but we must be outraged by acts against our troops.

“Our troops deserve our full support, and we must recognize the intensity of evil that we face, the lengths they will go to harm America and undermine our values, and the need to make sure we win this War on Terror to keep our families safe at home.”


Yes, there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

(Filed under heroes, the fifth column)

Everything you've ever wanted to know about Balochistan and Dagestan...and then some...

Can be found at Peace Like a River. A researcher and synthesizer extraordinaire, I am absolutely confounded by Jeff Kouba's worldly knowledge.

Jeff's blog is an entire college education--in one sitting.

(Filed under Great Blogs!)

Dick "OBL" Turbin does it again...

During the Senate debate regarding the two soldiers who were tortured, mutilated, and murdered in Iraq, the not-so-esteemed Senator from Illinois (up for re-election in 2008) Dick Durbin celebrated the occasion, not by condemning the terrorists scum who perpetrated the act, but rather at taking a stab at his own country during a time of war:
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters the discovery pointed up the need for President Bush to change policy in Iraq.

"Unfortunately, this is a grim reminder of the price we're paying for a failed policy in Iraq. At this point, we've lost over 2,500 of our best and bravest under terrible circumstances, and this latest report is just heartbreaking,'' said Durbin, the assistant minority leader. (emphases added)

Below is a picture of Dick "Turban" Durbin, reportedly taken at an ensuing press conference:

(feel free to use)

Look for "Durbin Must Go!" in 2008!

(Filed under the fifth column)

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Problems at Murtha Must Go!

...and just when we were getting things off the ground...

My new blog, Murtha Must Go! , created to expose and to help unseat the seditious congressment from PA's 12th CD, John Murtha, was just getting off the ground. With recognition by Wizbang, Blogs for Bush, and others, we were really starting to get enough traffic where our message was beginning to make a difference.---until, Google did a brain fart.

From nearly the beginning of Murtha Must Go! Blogger flagged it for being a suspected spam blog. This makes it so that you need to go through a word verification exercise before you can post; and also, I believe it makes it so that your feeds won't operate. I contacted Blogger twice. On each occasion, I got an email back stating that they reviewed the blog, found that it wasn't spam, and that we would be given regular posting priveleges. Unfortunately, none of that occurred, and we still to this day need to do the word verification thing in order to make a post.

Well, starting this afternoon, we couldn't even do that.

We have two posts in the wings, on the Blogger dashboard, that are supposedly published, although they don't show up on the blog. Additionally, when you view the blog and click on a timestamp under an individual post, instead of taking you to that individual post, the blogger web page reloads in its entirety to its frozen-state. I've republished the template and the entire blog numerous times, cleaned out the caches, tried different web browsers, all with the same result.

The number of comments indicator under each post remains static regardless of the number of comments actually made.

In other words, the blog as it shows up on the web page is now frozen in time.

I have contacted Blogger twice regarding these problems, but I'm afraid it's a bit like moving a graveyard.

If anyone has any suggestions on how to fix this, please let me know--

psycmeistr at fastmail dot fm


Murtha Must Go! is back in operation, although we still have the word verification which Blogger said that was supposed to be no more. Twice.



Everything now fixed--cleared for takeoff--all systems go!

(Filed under Murtha Must Go!, Housekeeping)